48
CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
(ix) Available remedies
(α) The parties’ submissions
168. The applicant submitted that persons who had availed themselves
of the possibility to request an investigation by the Foreign Intelligence
Inspectorate had received a standardised reply that no unlawful surveillance
had taken place. The applicant also stressed that the Inspectorate had no
power to order compensation to be paid. No complaints regarding signals
intelligence conducted by the FRA had been received by the Data Protection
Authority after 2009. In regard to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, the
Chancellor of Justice and the other remedies mentioned by the Government,
the applicant did not see any prospects of success unless there was evidence
to establish that an individual had in fact been subjected to unlawful
interception.
169. The Government emphasised that Swedish legislation offered
several remedies. Beyond the possibility for individuals to request the
Foreign Intelligence Inspectorate to check if his or her communications had
been intercepted, the FRA was obliged, upon request, to inform the
individual if his or her personal data had been treated or not and to correct,
block or destroy personal data that had not been processed in accordance
with law. In addition, complaints could be addressed to the Parliamentary
Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice, who had the power to
investigate that relevant laws had been properly applied and, in so doing,
were entitled to have access to documents of courts and administrative
authorities, including the Foreign Intelligence Court and the FRA. Although
they could not render legally binding decisions, their opinions commanded
great respect in Swedish society. Also the Data Protection Authority, aside
from being the supervisory authority on the FRA’s treatment of personal
data, could examine individual complaints. Furthermore, it was possible for
an individual to bring an action for damages, report a matter for prosecution
and bring a claim for compensation for violations of the Convention.
170. The International Commission of Jurists, Norwegian Section,
submitted that remedies were not available to non-Swedish citizens, despite
the fact that Swedish signals intelligence was focused on communications
crossing the Swedish border.
(β) The Court’s assessment
171. As the Court noted above, in the case of Kennedy the absence of a
requirement to notify the subject of interception was compatible with the
Convention, because the jurisdiction of the tribunal where the interception
could be challenged did not depend on a prior notification (see Kennedy,
cited above, § 167). Under the Signals Intelligence Act, the Foreign
Intelligence Inspectorate, at the request of an individual, investigates
whether his or her communications have been intercepted through signals